On Saturday, President Bush acknowledged that he had personally authorized a secret warrantless domestic surveillance program more than three dozen times since October 2001. Bush's actions run contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids "unreasonable searches" and sets out specific requirements for warrants, including "probable cause." They demonstrate a dangerous disregard for the basic liberties that serve as our nation's guiding values. They are also in violation of federal law. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance, except as "authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." Moreover, since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has directed that Title III and FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted." The President's actions were not necessary; if he had legitimate concerns about FISA, "the appropriate response would have been to go to Congress and expand it, not to blatantly violate the law." Below, we debunk the administration's attempts to justify Bush's actions.

FACT: BUSH PROGRAM WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS: Vice President Cheney said of the surveillance program, "It's the kind of capability, if we'd had before 9/11, might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11." This claim is false and sensational. The secret surveillance program authorized by President Bush did not provide the government with any new "capability." The government "already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests." Indeed, from 1979 to 2002, the FISA court issued 15,264 surveillance warrants. Not a single warrant application was rejected.

FACT: BUSH PROGRAM DID NOT IMPROVE SPEED OF OBTAINING WARRANTS: Another claim made by members of the administration is that President Bush needed "to skirt the normal process of obtaining court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too cumbersome for fast-paced counterterrorism investigations." This argument has several flaws. For one, the New York Times notes, "government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat." More importantly, Section 1805 of the FISA Act states that the government can begin a wiretap as soon as it determines a need and can wait up to
72 hours before obtaining a warrant. The Bush administration "did not seek to do that under the special program."

FACT: DISCLOSURE OF PROGRAM DID NOT UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY: After the New York Times published its story, President Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of the surveillance program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people. Bush said on Friday he wouldn't "comment about the veracity of the story...because it would compromise our ability to protect the people." Press Secretary Scott McClellan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both repeated this line. Within hours, however, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program in a Saturday morning address, but provided details about how it worked. In other words, the administration's initial refusal to comment was motivated by public relations, not security, concerns. The scope of surveillance under FISA -- which has long been public -- is the same under President Bush's secretive program.

FACT: RICE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT GAVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO EAVESDROP WITHOUT WARRANT: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was asked a simple question: what is the specific statute or law that gives President Bush the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant? She had no answer. Instead, Rice referenced unspecified "authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country," then explained she was "not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions." Indeed, Rice said several times that she is "not a lawyer." That fact is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Adviser when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bushs decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?

FACT: SOME CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS NOT TOLD OF PROGRAM: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice defended the eavesdropping program by arguing that congressional leaders -- specifically "leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees" -- had been briefed on the NSA activities. This is apparently not true. At the time the program was initiated, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). On Friday's "Nightline," Graham made clear he had never been briefed by the administration about the program: "There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to...begin unwarranted, illegal, and I think unconstitutional, eavesdropping on American citizens." Additionally, in a letter issued last night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she had been "advised by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence Committee, that the Bush Administration reversed its decision to brief the full House Intelligence Committee on the details of the activities."

FACT: IN CONFIRMATION HEARING, GONZALES DENIED BUSH WOULD ACT BEYOND CRIMINAL STATUTES: In a classified legal opinion, the administration argued the President had the power to order the warrantless search pursuant to his authority as commander-in-chief to wage war against al-Qaeda. During his Attorney General confirmation hearings in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Gonzales specifically whether the president "at least in theory [has] the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief?" After trying to dodge the question for a time, Gonzales issued this denial: "Senator, this president is not ?I ?it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Later, Feingold asked Gonzales to "commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it." Gonzales replied, "I will advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir."


Informant: Scott Munson

As Tom DeLay became a king of campaign fundraising, he lived like one too. He visited cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and four-star restaurants all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1425390


Informant: Bigraccoon

Die Presse, 19.12.2005

VON BENEDIKT KOMMENDA

Verwaltung und Justiz scheuen davor zurück, dem zunehmenden Einsatz der Funktechnologie entgegenzutreten, meint Umweltrechtler Ferdinand Kerschner. "Verwaltungsbehörden und Gerichte schieben das Problem wie eine heiße Kartoffel hin und her", sagte der Linzer Umweltrechtler Univ.-Prof. Ferdinand Kerschner. (c) APA

SALZBURG. Der letzte Schrei unter den Handy-Accessoires, die zur Zeit als Weihnachtsgeschenke beworben werden, hat Symbolcharakter: ein überdimensional wirkender knallroter Telefonhörer, der mit einem Spiralkabel nach Art der Festnetzapparate aus dem zweiten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend an ein Mobiltelefon angeschlossen wird. Geht es nach dem Willen und den Warnungen mancher Mediziner, sollte man sich verstärkt des guten alten Festnetzes besinnen: Denn die immer weiter verbreitete Funktechnologie berge Risken, deren sich die Benutzer von Schnurlostelefonen, Handys und Funknetzwerken (WLAN) zu wenig bewusst seien.

Unter dieser Prämisse stand die Podiumsdiskussion "Mobilfunk, Mensch und Recht", die das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM) am Freitagabend in Salzburg veranstaltete. Das Ergebnis vorweg: Die rechtlichen Mittel, gegen die angenommenen Gesundheitsgefährdungen vorzugehen, sind äußerst beschränkt.

"Verwaltungsbehörden und Gerichte schieben das Problem wie eine heiße Kartoffel hin und her", sagte der Linzer Umweltrechtler Univ.-Prof. Ferdinand Kerschner. Niemand wolle die Verantwortung übernehmen - aus einem einfachen Grund, so Kerschner: "Es geht um sehr viel Geld."

Dabei sind nach Aussagen Gerd Oberfelds, Umweltmediziner des Landes Salzburg, die nachteiligen Wirkungen - von Störungen des Wohlbefindens bis zum erhöhten Krebsrisiko - von Handys, Sendemasten und Heim-Funknetzen vielfach belegt. Oberfeld war auch im Sommer an der Warnung der Ärztekammer vor den Langzeitfolgen von Handy- und Schnurlostelefonie beteiligt - einer Warnung, die von der Mobilfunkindustrie als haltlos zurückgewiesen wurde.

Für Umweltrechtler Kerschner wäre es allerdings an der Zeit, gleichsam die Beweislast umzudrehen und Mobilfunkanlagen nur unter der Bedingung zu genehmigen, dass ihre Ungefährlichkeit nachgewiesen ist. In diesem Sinn habe sich auch der EuGH (C-127/02) für das "Vorsorgeprinzip" ausgesprochen, als er den Nachweis der Naturverträglichkeit der Herzmuschelfischerei im Wattenmeer verlangte. Was für die Herzmuschel gelte, müsse umso mehr für die menschliche Gesundheit gelten, meinte Kerschner.

Während es den Verwaltungsbehörden bei der Genehmigung von Sendeanlagen verwehrt sei, über Gesundheitsaspekte zu urteilen, bleibe noch die Möglichkeit, den "Belästigungsschutz" wahrzunehmen. Darüber hätte der Verwaltungsgerichtshof aber noch nicht entschieden, wobei Kerschners Hoffnungen nicht allzu groß sind.

Die ordentlichen Gerichte wiederum würden sich mit der Einhaltung von Grenzwerten begnügen, die nur den "Durchschnittsmenschen" und nicht auch Kinder, Alte und Kranke berücksichtigten. Deshalb plädiert Kerschner für einen neuen Ansatz: Wenn der Sendekegel eines Handymasts direkt auf ein benachbartes Grundstück gerichtet sei, dann könne man das als "unmittelbare Zuleitung" sehen, wie sie das ABGB - ursprünglich Abflussrohre und Ähnliches meinend - ohne Einwilligung des Nachbarn "unter allen Umständen" verbietet. "Man kann mit dem Nachbarn alles vereinbaren", sagt Kerschner, "aber man muss ihn fragen." Vom persönlichen Wohlbefinden abgesehen ist auch der Wert von Liegenschaften in der Nachbarschaft von Antennenmasten beeinträchtigt.

Univ.-Prof. Wolfram Karl, Leiter des ÖIM, und sein Mitarbeiter Eduard Christian Schöpfer bauen indes auf den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte. Ansätze sieht Karl in der Straßburger Judikatur zu dem Schutzpflichten des Staates im Zusammenhang mit dem Recht auf Leben und zum Recht auf Privat- und Familienleben. Schöpfer wirft angesichts der Schwierigkeiten bei der Geltendmachung von Abwehrrechten die Frage nach der menschenrechtlich garantierten "wirksamen Beschwerde" auf.

Nur ein einziges wurde - eher ungewöhnlich in einem Haus, wo die Menschenrechte und also auch die Fairness sehr viel zählen - vergessen: einen Vertreter der Mobilfunker auf das Podium einzuladen, der für die andere Seite das Wort hätte ergreifen können.

Omega siehe hierzu "Mobilfunk, Mensch und Recht" unter:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1356123/

http://diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=e&ressort=r&id=527000&archiv=false

mit freundlichen Grüßen

Michael Meyer

michael_meyer@aon.at
Risiko Mobilfunk Österreich Plattform Sozialstaat Österreich - Netzwerk Zivilcourage
A - 5165 Berndorf, Stadl 4
Tel/Fax 0043 - 6217 - 8576

--------

Mobilfunk und Menschenrechte
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1238278/

Mobilfunk, Mensch und Recht
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1189695/

Verbraucherzentrale: Kein rechtlicher Schutz bei Mobilfunkgeschädigten
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1290252/

Opfer könnten vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte klagen http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1240497/

Please SAVE our Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here is information to contact Senator Bill Nelson, he will do what is right!!!

His Washington D.C. office telephone is JAMMED!!!, but you can call his Coral Gables office it is open. I did!!

Alan Dicey


U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D) Local Address
2925 Salzedo Street Miami, Florida 33134
(305) 536-5999 Fax: 305-536-5991

Washington Address
716 Hart Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Telephone: 202-224-5274 Fax: 202-228-2183
E-mail: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
E-Mail: senator@billnelson.senate.gov

München: Bayerischer Verfassungsschutz soll angeblich in CIA-Affaire verwickelt sein (20.12.05)

In den Fall des von der CIA entführten Deutsch-Libanesen Khaled el Masri soll einem "Focus"-Bericht zufolge auch das bayerische Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz (LfV) verwickelt gewesen sein. Demnach soll ein LfV-Mitarbeiter ein Dossier über El Masri einem Verbindungsbeamten des US-Geheimdienstes CIA übergeben haben. Das Landesamt wies die Behauptung als falsch zurück. Die FDP verlangte Aufklärung vom bayerischen Innenminister Günther Beckstein.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=12561

Ban Terminator News, December 2005

New Calls from Peasants and Small Scale Farmers to Ban Terminator

Take action in your community to endorse the campaign and add your statements against Terminator to these new resolutions from farmers and seed savers in Europe, Canada and South Africa:

1) European Seeds Seminar Calls for a Ban on Terminator, November 26

2) Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (Canada) Resolution to Endorse Global Campaign to Ban Terminator Technology, November 26

3) German Family Farmers Association, Living seeds instead of dead harvest - Stop Terminator Seeds, November 27

4) KwaNgwanase Farmers Organisation and Phadima Farmers Association, South Africa, Objections and Comments on Terminator Technology Gene, December 2

1) European Seeds Seminar Calls for a Ban on Terminator "Let's Liberate Diversity" Poitiers, France, 25th and 26th November 2005

Resolution to Call for a Ban on Terminator Technology because of its European and Global Impacts on Farmers, Food Sovereignty and the Environment

Participants at the European Seeds Seminar, who came from 15 European countries and 21 countries in other continents (1), meeting in Poitiers, France on 26th November 2005 supported the international campaign to Ban Terminator technology – its development, testing and commercialisation (2).

Terminator, a technology requiring multiple genetic modifications, will stop farmers from being able to save and reuse seed. It is designed to prevent farm-saved seed from germinating so that farmers have to buy new seeds each season. It has been developed to increase corporate control over seeds by the biotech companies. Terminator directly infringes Farmers’ Rights, undermines food sovereignty and presents a threat to farmers’ livelihoods and agricultural biodiversity.

The participants at the seminar:

- Opposed the use of Terminator or any other GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) that would prevent farmers from saving and re-using seeds;

- Called on the European Patent Office to revoke the patent on Terminator technology granted to Delta & Pine Land and United States Department of Agriculture on 5th October 2005 (3);

- Rejected the false claim that Terminator technology could permit co- existence of conventional and GM crops – it cannot be a biosafety tool;

- Criticised the investment in research on Terminator technology which diverts funds and effort from agriculturally useful investigation;

- Called on peasants and rural peoples to actively expose and oppose Terminator technology and GM crops and intensify the struggle against imperialist globalisation and the agrochemical transnational corporations; and

- Called on their governments to: Ban Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) and Terminator, and Defend the existing de facto moratorium on the development, testing and commercialisation of Terminator technology, in upcoming meetings of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in March 2006.

(1) At the seminar there were about 140 participants from national and international farmers’ organisations, NGOs, agricultural research organisations and national, regional and international civil society networks concerned with seeds, agricultural biodiversity, food and farming.

(2) See http://www.banterminator.org

(3) The Terminator patent, EP 0 775 212 B1, was granted by the European Patent Office on 5th October 2005 to US-based Delta & Pine Land (D&PL Technology Holding Company LLC ) and the United States of America, represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. According to further data bank research the patent was already granted in similar versions in the USA, further applications were filed in Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Turkey and South Africa. A patent was also granted in Canada on October 11 2005.

Adopted at 16:15 on 26th November 2005, by unanimous vote in the final Plenary.

2) Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFA0)

Resolution to Endorse Global Campaign to Ban Terminator Technology. Passed November 26, 2005, Dixon’s Corners.

Whereas ecological farmers attempt to work with nature by using practices like encouraging biodiversity and,

Whereas ecological farmers often rely on on-farm resources like farm saved seed and,

Whereas past technologies offered to farmers like technology use agreements for GMOs, pesticides and chemical fertilizers perpetuate an agricultural model far removed from nature and damaging to the environment and,

Whereas Terminator technology or GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) refers to plants that have been genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest and,

Whereas Terminator technology goes against the practice of farming with nature and gives seed multinationals increased control over farmers and,

Whereas the EFAO GMO policy includes a request to "Ban agreements and technology (e.g. Terminator type genes), which restrict farmers’ right to save, trade and reuse seeds."

Therefore be it resolved that the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario endorse the global campaign to ask all national governments, including Canada, and international bodies to ban terminator in order to ensure that the technology is never field tested or commercialized,

Be it further resolved that EFAO make its position known to the Canadian government and the general public.

Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFA0) 5420 Hwy 6 N. R.R. 5 Guelph ON N1H 6J2 (519) 822-8606

Accompanying Press Release December 8, 2005 Ecological Farmers Ask Canadian Government to Ban ‘Suicide Seeds’

At its recent Annual General Meeting the membership of the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFAO), passed a motion endorsing the global campaign asking all governments, including Canada, to ban terminator technology to ensure the technology is never field tested or commercialized. Terminator technology refers to plants that have been genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest.

Oxford county farmer and EFAO President, Ann Slater says, "By genetically modifying plants that cannot reproduce themselves, the biotechnology and seed corporations, with co-operation from governments, have completely disconnected the growing of food from the rhythm and cycles of nature. In addition, it threatens our seed, and ultimately, our food security by forcing farmers to purchase seed each year."

The official term for Terminator is Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURTs) but the seeds produced through terminator technology are frequently referred to as ‘suicide seeds’ because of their inability to reproduce themselves. This technology was initially developed by seed company, Delta and Pine Land and the US government. The net result of this technology will be that farmers will be unable to replant harvested seed.

"The Canadian Government should be looking at whether this technology benefits farmers and society at large. I fear the motive of the companies is not to feed the world but to fatten their bottom lines." states Director Fran McQuail, from Huron County. " To me, Terminator technology is another genetic modification which might pollute the world's seed stocks the way some of the herbicide resistant genes have, and could potentially cause famine in regions where local food supplies are completely dependant on farm saved seed."

At this point, terminator technology has not been commercialized or field-tested - although trials are currently being conducted in greenhouses in the United States. Since 2000, there has been a de facto moratorium on the release of Terminator seeds under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. However, over the past year there has been a push to lift the moratorium.

Terminator technology will be discussed at meetings of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in early 2006. Environmental, peasant and citizen groups from across the world, including the EFAO are asking governments to use these meetings as an opportunity to ban Terminator and protect the livelihood of small- scale and family farmers around the world.

For more information contact: EFAO President, Ann Slater (519) 349-2448 EFAO Director, Fran McQuail (519) 528-2493

3) German Family Farmers Association Living seeds instead of dead harvest - Stop Terminator Seeds , Altenkirchen/ Hamm, 27.11.2005

The General Meeting of the German Family Farmers Association decides unanimously:

The Family Farmers Association in Germany supports the actions against Terminator and will contact all Farmers Associations in Germany to form a broad alliance against Terminator. The Family Farmers Association (AbL) condemns the technical assault on the fertileness of seeds and stands up for the right to save seeds. Reasons:

The Terminator-Technology manipulates crops like wheat, soy or canola in a way that the harvest becomes sterile and the fertileness of seed is destroyed. This Technology is complex and error-prone, but is advertised as a biological containment system to avoid cross- pollination and contamination. The introduction of Terminator- Technology, accompanied by sterile harvest, rules out the right and the possibility to save seed. Terminator aggravates the degree of dependence for farmers in the south and in the north and changes the agricultural system in a very important way. Food sovereignty and biodiversity are threatened by Terminator.

Developed ten years ago, Terminator-Technology is driven by Delta & Pine Land and the US-Government. They aimed to stop the possibility to save seeds. Through the concept of biological containment system they are trying to get Terminator-Technology accepted.

In February, the Canadian government tried to overturn the existing moratorium of the UN against Terminator. They are expected to try to open the door to Terminator during the upcoming meetings of the UN Convention of Biological Diversity in Spain and Brazil.

The international Campaign “Ban Terminator” started in Canada and gets now the first supports from German Organisations.

AbL-Bundesgeschäftsstelle, Bahnhofstraße 31, D-59065 Hamm/Westfalen Tel.: +49-2381 9053171, Fax: +49-2381 492221, E-mail: info@abl-ev.de

4) Objections and Comments on Terminator Technology Gene: Comments on above Technology Generated on 02 December 2005 by KwaNgwanase Farmers Organisation and Phadima Farmers Association

1. We disagree with the government proposal to guarantee this permit.

2. This will destroy our ecological system.

3. Our soil will become poor acidic, and will only produce only Gmo crops and our food systems is reduced. Our culture and seeds will be destroyed.

4. This technology is an enemy of nature and ecological system.

5. Farmers rights and cultural rights are not taken care of.

6. Food security systems operations are destroyed consumers will also dependent.

7. South African emerging farmers, commercial not be empowered only outside seed breeders are encouraged to monopolise our farming systems.

8. This technology uses chemical packages which destroys our environments and increase toxic elements in our Health systems.

9. We pledge to S.A Government to stop this technology in our country.

10. This is the way Government want to destroys and complete finishes our local seed varieties and our indigenous knowledge systems.

11. This is not natural and ethical.

12. This will create a nation without culture and poverty is promoted.

13. The KwaNgwanase "Inkosi" Tembe must call the ''imbizo'' for the community to verify and promote Tembe cultural values and activities, (Tembe Reinasance).

14. We must go to public to tell them about this technology and let them have a choice.

Die WTO-Ministerkonferenz hat den Industriestaaten mehr gebracht, als sie zugeben wollen.

http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21616/1.html

Eigentlich hatte die US-Regierung den Irak wegen der Massenvernichtungswaffen angegriffen, jetzt lässt man die die angeblich für die Entwicklung von biologischen Waffen Verantwortlichen frei.

http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21620/1.html

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR

The last bill of the year for the Congress is the massive Department of Defense (DoD) spending bill, which funds the military and, in this case, other crucial national security issues such as disaster assistance and avian flu preparedness. Unfortunately, the Congress passed up a tremendous opportunity to pass a provision to limit the global trade in cockfighting birds--a well-established threat to transmit bird flu and a pathway to spread the deadly disease across the globe--and instead used the Defense spending bill to attach a controversial provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Senate will vote on this bill as soon as Wednesday, please tell your Senators to reject it.

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR

Animal protection advocates were more than hopeful that the House would attach the relatively uncontroversial "Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act" (S. 382 and H.R. 817) to the DoD spending bill given that there were a raft of provisions attached to combat avian influenza and to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic. But not only was the anti-cockfighting bill not included, the committee reviewing the DoD appropriations bill went out of its way to explicitly state in a press release that it never intended to include any language related to anti-animal fighting efforts. Tell Congress to reject the DoD bill.

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR

To add insult to injury, the committee then tacked on a controversial rider that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling. The Arctic Refuge is home to hundreds of species of wildlife including polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, grizzly bears, and other wildlife species. The HSUS has long opposed drilling in the Arctic, and a measure that stirs such controversy and that has divided the country and the Congress should not be handled in this manner. Congress should be doing all it can to combat bird flu, not slipping in a controversial energy production plan in a wildlife refuge.

Do we have to wait for an outbreak of avian flu to occur in this country before we put an end to the barbaric cockfighting industry? Please act now! Call your U.S. Senators today. You can reach your Senators through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Not sure what to say? Click here to look up your Senators, see a sample phone call, and to send an email to your Senators.

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR

The DoD appropriations bill will be up for a vote as soon as Wednesday. Tell your Senators to reject the final DoD appropriations bill because it includes Arctic drilling but does not include common-sense measures to help stop the spread of bird flu by cracking down on cruel cockfights. Urge your friends to take action, too.

Thank you for your action in these last critical hours. I know many of you are busy with holiday preparations, and I appreciate you taking time out for this important matter.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

Copyright © 2005 The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). All Rights Reserved.

The Humane Society of the United States | 2100 L Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037, humanelines@hsus.org | 202-452-1100 | http://www.hsus.org

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3814/


Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news

In brief, we have found there is substantial evidence that the president, vice president, and other high-ranking members of the Bush administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for said war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their administration.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Y.shtml

http://www.stopcorporateabusenow.org/campaign/exposebottledwater

Water is precious to all life on earth. But today, for more and more communities, safe water is increasingly scarce. Globally, more than a billion people don’t have access to enough safe water to drink.

From privatizing municipal water systems to bottling, marketing and selling water—giant corporations are turning water into a profit-driven commodity. Here in the U.S., the consumption of bottled water has more than doubled in the past ten years. The bottled water industry is manipulating consumers by positioning bottled water as healthy—when in reality bottled water threatens our health and our ecosystems, costs thousands of times what tap water costs, and undermines local democratic control over a common resource.

Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Pepsi are the three largest corporations behind the bottled water industry in North America. These corporations are manipulating consumers while degrading the environment and exercising greater corporate control over communities’ water systems and water sources. These corporations have a track record tainted with irresponsible and dangerous actions and are not shy about using political and economic influence to turn public water into private profit.

Take action today and tell Coke, Nestlé and Pepsi to stop misleading promotion of bottled water and to stop interfering in public policies that protect our water.

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): The CEOs of Coke, Nestle and Pepsi

Below is the sample letter:

Subject: Water is a right, not a commodity

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

The basic human right to water is at risk and people's lives are at stake. Over one billion people don't have access to safe water to drink and corporations are contributing to this problem by turning water into a profit-driven commodity.

I am joining thousands of other consumers worldwide calling on you to:

1. Stop misleading promotion of your bottled water brands
2. Stop interfering in public policies that protect water

When will you stop prioritizing short term gains over people and the environment? I await your prompt reply.

Sincerely,


http://www.stopcorporateabusenow.org/stopcorporateabuse/home.html

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,391506,00.html

(SPON) Amerikanische Polizei und Geheimdienste haben den Auftrag, Umweltschützer, sozial engagierte NGOs, FriedensaktivistInnen und Tierschutzgruppen im Rahmen der Antiterrorfahndung zu überwachen. Das berichtet aktuell die New York Times.

Der Überwachung unterliegen in den USA unter anderem Greenpeace, die Tierschutzorganisation Peta und die katholische Arbeitnehmerbewegung. Die katholischen Arbeitnehmer werden überwacht mit der Begründung, sie verfolgten eine "halbkommunistische Ideologie ". Die Freigabe der Dokumente, die dies enthüllen und von ihr an die New York Times übergeben wurden, war von der amerikanischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung durchgesetzt worden. Auch in Deutschland werden - dem US-amerikanischen Vorbild folgend - NGOs und andere Organisationen z.b. der Friedensbewegung als potenzielle Terrororganisationen überwacht. Vom Hamburger Verfassungsschutz wurde in diesem Zusammenhang insbesondere die Linkspartei als besorgniserregend eingestuft.


G.Wendebourg / metainfo hamburg

Link zum Beitrag / Hintergrundinfo oder Pressehinweis:
http://www.hh-online.com?lid=23285 und
http://links.net-hh.de?lid=23285

Infopool / metainfo hamburg www.hh-online.com

Tom Engelhardt writes that the attacks of 9/11 gave the Bush administration an opening to attempt to sweep away the last obstacles in the path of a presidency dedicated to the idea that no prohibition of any sort should stand in its way (or domestically, in the way of the Republican Party).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005O.shtml

According to reports, early returns show a strong performance by the followers of the outspoken Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr. Some reports estimate Muqtada's nominees winning almost one third of the UIA slate.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005L.shtml

With tensions rising in the Capitol, Senate Democrats threatened on Monday to derail a $453 billion military spending bill over an Arctic oil drilling dispute, just hours after the House approved the measure in an all-night session that also included passage of a $40 billion budget-cutting bill.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005K.shtml

Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005J.shtml

Robert Byrd states that the president claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the president unchecked power to spy on our own people, to create covert prisons for secret prisoners, authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them, authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around US law, or give the president the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005I.shtml

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/crapo_s_2110

Anti-Endangered Species Bill in Senate

Ask Your Senators to Oppose S. 2110 Senate bill would gut Endangered Species Act

Late last week, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) introduced a bill to radically undermine the Endangered Species Act. Senate bill S. 2110, cynically titled the “Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act,” would completely derail the endangered species listing program, remove protections for endangered species habitat, and cut federal oversight of projects that threaten endangered species. (A full explanation and full text of the Crapo bill is available at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org .)

We need you to call your senators and ask them to oppose S. 2110, Senator Crapo’s anti-endangered species bill! Contact your senator through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Crapo hopes to pass a Senate bill that would allow Congress to adopt the terrible Pombo anti-endangered species bill that passed the House this September. Crapo introduced his bill in the midst of Congress’s end-of-year rush to finish up work so they can leave town for the holidays. He is hoping to sneak this bill through the Senate Finance Committee in order to avoid the Environment and Public Works Committee that usually oversees endangered species issues.

Therefore, we need to raise the alarm: let your senators know they need to oppose this attack on the Endangered Species Act! Otherwise this terrible bill will get moving in the Senate under the radar. We need early and strong opposition to stop this bill before it ever gets off the ground.

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): Your Senators

Below is the sample letter:

Subject: Please Oppose S. 2110 Anti-Endangered Species Bill

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

I want you to know that I strongly support the Endangered Species Act, and I oppose any measure that would undermine protections for America's endangered plants and wildlife. S. 2110, recently introduced by Senator Crapo, would completely derail the endangered species listing program, remove protections for endangered species habitat, and cut federal oversight of projects that threaten endangered species. I strongly urge you to support protections for endangered wildlife and plants and to oppose S. 2110. Thank you.

Sincerely,

By Bill Van Auken

20 December 2005

In his nationally televised address from the White House Oval Office Sunday night, George W. Bush reprised the barefaced lies, distortions and appeals to fear and political backwardness that characterized the last such speech delivered by the US president, announcing the onset of the unprovoked US "shock and awe" onslaught against Iraq 33 months ago.

This time around, however, Bush found himself compelled to argue against those who "conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day"-a description that applies to many millions of Americans. He was forced to acknowledge that the attempt to quell resistance to the US occupation has been "more difficult than we expected," and, while touting the turnout in Sunday's Iraqi parliamentary elections, he admitted that the vote "will not mean the end of violence."

Despite fleeting acknowledgements of massive popular opposition to the war, the essential message was that the administration has no intention of bowing to public opinion and withdrawing US troops. Rather, it plans to continue the slaughter in Iraq indefinitely in pursuit of the geo-strategic aims that motivated the war in the first place.

The speech was sandwiched between Bush's live radio address Saturday and a White House press conference Monday, both of which he used to defiantly defend his secret and illegal use of the National Security Agency to spy on US citizens, arguing for what amounts to dictatorial powers.

The media made much of Bush's admissions about "difficulties" and "setbacks," his claim to having heard those who "did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq" and what the Washington Post referred to as his "forthright statement" and "more humble tone."

These trappings of the speech, like Bush's elaborate hand gestures, were all crafted by his political handlers with the aim of deceiving a portion of the public. The essential content of the address was the defense of an illegal war based upon lies and an attempt to intimidate those who oppose it.

The essential framework of this defense was the same as that utilized to drag the American people into this war in the first place-the lie that the invasion of Iraq was a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington and constituted an essential battle in the "global war on terror."

The tragic events of September 11-and the Bush administration's manifest failure to take any action to prevent them-have never been seriously investigated, much less explained. One thing is certain, however: They were seized upon by the administration as a pretext for carrying out a war planned years before, which was aimed at imposing US domination over the Persian Gulf in order to seize control of its oil resources and secure a decisive strategic advantage over US capitalism's principal economic rivals.

Now Bush attempts to portray the war in Iraq as a confrontation between the US military and Al Qaeda terrorists who, if not defeated in Iraq, would soon be attacking the US. This is patent nonsense. The Pentagon and the CIA have repeatedly acknowledged that the resistance to the US occupation is a matter of Iraqis fighting to throw foreign invaders out of their own country. Tens of thousands have been killed or imprisoned by the US military in Iraq, yet only a handful of so-called "foreign fighters" have been counted among them.

"We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists," Bush declared in one of the more ignorant passages in his speech. "We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens, and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share."

But Iraq was no "safe haven" for terrorists before the US invasion. The relation between the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda was one of mutual hostility. And, as far as Iraq today is concerned, the occupation, as US military officers readily acknowledge, is most certainly producing tens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are prepared to wage an armed struggle against American troops. Relatives of the innocent civilians killed at roadblocks and by bombing attacks, massacred in sieges like Fallujah or imprisoned and tortured in Abu Ghraib and other US concentration camps provide an inexhaustible source of recruits for the resistance.

Connected to the lie about the war in Iraq's supposed connection to September 11 and terrorism is the assertion that the administration acted upon flawed intelligence. Bush acknowledged that the claims about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq were false, only to dismiss this fact as irrelevant.

"Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," he said. "Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

The intelligence, however, was not merely "wrong," it was deliberately fabricated in order to provide a phony justification for the war-Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction-and to terrorize the American people into accepting it.

In his speech, Bush tried to explain away the manufacturing of false intelligence by claiming that Saddam Hussein had "systematically concealed those programs and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors," and that "that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."

The reality is that the weapons inspectors did the job that they were assigned, destroying all of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. As for other nations, the great majority viewed Iraq as posing no imminent threat, and therefore blocked the Bush administration's attempts to get the UN to authorize an invasion. The UN weapons inspectors themselves refuted the claims made by Washington.

Bush insists that the fact the war was waged on the basis of lies is of no consequence because the happy result is that the US intervention is establishing a "constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East" that "will serve as a model of freedom" for the region. This is also a lie.

First, the regime that is taking shape in Iraq-dominated by religious fundamentalists, torn by bitter sectarian divisions and ruling through the use of death squads and torture chambers-is hardly a model of democracy or freedom for anyone. Secondly, the US secures its interests throughout the region through the closest alliances with despots and dictators, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Pakistan.

The rest of the speech consisted largely of jingoistic bluster and attempts at political intimidation. The president employed his usual cheap trick of portraying any attempt to end a dirty war that has claimed the lives of nearly 2,200 American soldiers as a betrayal of the troops.

"Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost," he said, adding, "We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed."

The morale of "our troops" found a more accurate expression during Vice President Dick Cheney's lighting visit to Iraq on the same day Bush gave his speech. Addressing US troops, Cheney-whose trip was conducted in secrecy and under extraordinary military protection-assured them the resistance was in its "last throes."

Press reports portrayed a sullen uniformed audience, however. Among those selected to address questions to the vice president was a Marine corporal who said to Cheney, "From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains" in the war. "I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain."

Another Marine, asked the vice president, "Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?"

In its report on the meeting, the Associated Press provided a graphic illustration of the skepticism and outright hostility of many soldiers to the administration's war: "When he [Cheney] delivered the applause line, 'We 're in this fight to win. These colors don't run,' the only sound was a lone whistle."

Bush likewise used his prime time speech to brand anyone who opposed his declared policy of war until victory as a "defeatist," guilty of endangering "the security of our people."

The speech had the desired effect upon the Democratic Party, whose leadership has made it clear that it has no intention of mounting a challenge to Bush over the war. Leading Democrats praised Bush for his supposed new-found conciliation and "candor." A typical reaction was that of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who said, "The president has reached out and spoken more directly than ever before about how we went to war and why it is important to achieve victory, a goal we all share."

In an interview with the Washington Post published last Friday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) made it clear that her declaration of support for a resolution put forward by Democratic Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania calling for a US military withdrawal in six months did not signal a party position. Rather, she said, Democrats' attitude toward the war would be a "matter of individual conscience." In other words, the party will do all in its power to downplay the war, which is overwhelmingly opposed by Democratic voters, in the 2006 midterm elections. The last thing the party leadership wants is for the elections to become a referendum on the war.

Despite the Democrats' support for the continuation of the war, the Bush administration is well aware that this bipartisan position is deeply unpopular among a vast section of the American population.

To counter this mass opposition, the administration has chosen to launch a campaign of fear-mongering coupled with calls for ever greater police state powers. This is the significance of its decision to go on the offensive over the revelations of the illegal domestic spying operation mounted by the National Security Agency under Bush's orders.

In a one-hour press conference Monday that was dominated by the NSA revelations, Bush mentioned the September 11 attacks at least 15 times, claiming that after the terrorist attacks, the US was at war, and that he required extraordinary powers to protect the American people. He insisted, essentially, that his constitutional role as "commander in chief" coupled with the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda gave him limitless power.

Earlier in the day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in defending the NSA spying operation, dismissed concerns over the legality of domestic espionage by pointing out that the US Supreme Court had already upheld the president's power to declare US citizens "enemy combatants" and secretly detain them indefinitely without charges.

At the press conference, one reporter asked Bush, "If the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?"

Bush responded angrily to what he termed "ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president." As for checks on presidential power, he declared, there is the "check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters"-in other words, a government over whose activities there is no enforceable oversight and whose word is supposed to be accepted on faith by the people.

Bush reserved his greatest anger, however, for those in the Senate who, citing threats to civil liberties, blocked the reauthorization of provisions of the USA Patriot Act. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to explain why these cities are safer" without the renewal of these measures, he said.

Speaking on Monday, Cheney made a similar criticism. Appearing on the ABC news program "Nightline," he declared, "What I'm concerned about . . . is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11 . . . we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country."

Taken together, these statements have an ominous significance. Desperate regimes take desperate measures. Facing mass opposition and besieged on all sides by revelations of criminal activities ranging from torture to secret prisons to illegal spying, the Bush administration is responding with a drumbeat of warnings that September 11 could happen again. The question is whether this administration is preparing to either engineer or allow such an attack as a means of suppressing domestic dissent and furthering its policies of militarism abroad and reaction at home.

See also: Bush defends illegal spying on Americans: the specter of presidential dictatorship [19 December 2005] Pentagon's domestic spying operations target opponents of Iraq war [15 December 2005] Deal to renew USA Patriot Act extends police-state measures [13 December 2005]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/bush-d20.shtml


Informant: Friends

"This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American." Senator Russell Feingold, December 17, 2005

The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=43492

(14 paragraphs) Executive Run Amok Spying and Lying

Katrina vanden Heuvel

BLOG | Posted 12/18/2005 @ 5:42pm

Under pressure from the White House, the New York Times withheld publication for a year of a report of illegal domestic surveillance of US citizens. Katrina vanden Heuvel writes that if information is the oxygen of democracy, the Bush Administration is trying to cut off the supply. Journalists and media organizations must find a way to restore their role as effective watchdogs, as checks on an executive run amok.

----------------------------------------------------

"This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American."

Senator Russell Feingold, December 17, 2005

As reported by the New York Times on Friday, "Months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."

A senior intelligence officer says Bush personally and repeatedly gave the NSA permission for these taps--more than three dozen times since October 2001. Each time, the White House counsel and the Attorney General--whose job it is to guard and defend our civil liberties and freedoms--certified the lawfulness of the program. (It is useful here to note "The Yoo Factor": The domestic spying program was justified by a "classified legal opinion" written by former Justice Department official John Yoo, the same official who wrote a memo arguing that interrogation techniques only constitute torture if they are "equivalent in intensity to...organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.")

Illegally spying on Americans is chilling--even for this Administration. Moreover, as Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, told the Times, "the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity." Some officials at the NSA agree. According to the Times, "Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation." Others were "worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected President."

It's always a fight to find out what the government doesn't want us to know, and this Administration and its footsoldiers have used every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function of holding power accountable. But compounding the Administration's double-dealing, the media has been largely complicit in the face of White House mendacity. David Sirota puts it more bluntly in a recent entry from his blog: "We are watching the media being used as a tool of state power in overriding the very laws that are supposed to confine state power and protect American citizens."

Consider this: the New York Times says it "delayed publication" of the NSA spying story for a year. The paper says it acceded to White House arguments that publishing the article "could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be-terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

Despite Administration demands though, it was reported in yesterday's Washington Post that the decision by Times editor Bill Keller to withhold the article caused friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the paper's DC bureau had apparently pushed for earlier publication. In an explanatory statement, Keller issued the excuse that, "Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." This from a paper, which as First Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus pointed out in a letter to editor "rejected similar arguments when it courageously pub;ished the Pentagon Papers over the government's false objections that it would endanger our foreign policy as well as the lives of individuals." The Times, Garbus went on to argue, "owes its readers more. The Bush Administration's record for truthfulness is not such that one should rely on its often meaningless and vague assertions."

Readers and citizens deserve to know why the New York Times capitulated to the White House's request? It is true that Friday's revelations of this previously unknown, illegal domestic spying program helped stop the Patriot Act reauthorization. But what if the Times had published its story before the election? And what other stories have been held up due to Adminsitration cajoling, pressure, threats and intimidation?

The question of how this Administration threatens the workings of a free press, a cornerstone of democracy, remains a central one. Every week brings new evidence of White House attempts to delegitimize the press's role as a watchdog of government abuse, an effective counter to virtually unchecked executive power.

Last month, for example, the Washington Post published Dana Priest's extraordinary report about the CIA's network of prisons in Eastern Europe for suspected terrorists. Priest's reporting helped push passage of a ban on the metastasizing use of torture. But, as with the New York Times, the Post acknowledged that it had acceded to government requests to withhold the names of the countries in which the black site prisons exist.

How many other cases are there of news outlets choosing to honor government requests for secrecy over the journalistic duty of informing the public about government abuse and wrongdoing?

Never has the need for an independent press been greater. Never has the need to know what is being done in our name been greater. As Bill Moyers said in an important speech delivered on the 20th anniversary of the National Security Archive, a dedicated band of truth-tellers, "...There has been nothing in our time like the Bush Administration's obsession with secrecy." Moyers added. "It's an old story: the greater the secrecy, the deeper the corruption."

Federation of American Scientists secrecy specialist Steven Aftergood bluntly says, "an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone unenumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, websites and official databases." This practice, Aftergood adds, "also accords neatly with the Bush Administration's preference for unchecked executive authority."

"Information is the oxygen of democracy," Aftergood rightly insists. This Administration is trying to cut off the supply. Journalists and media organizations must find a way to restore their role as effective watchdogs, as checks on an executive run amok.


Informant: Bob Reuschlein

From ufpj-news

The vice president is breathlessly rushing home to cast a tie-breaking vote to cut health care for the poor and disabled.

http://tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#7077

by Frank O'Donnell, TomPaine.com

Today, the EPA unveils regulations that will shield the power industry from air pollution cleanup.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051220/the_unfriendly_skies.php

HLV INFO 190/AT

20-12-2005

Volker Hartenstein 12-12-05

Während 30 Jahren hat die WHO geleugnet, dass Passivrauchen schädlich sein könnte und der dafür bei ihr verantwortliche Professor kassierte für seinen Einsatz von der Tabakindustrie 4.5 Millionen Franken. Siehe http://www.gigaherz.ch/484

Wesentlich günstiger, so um die 150'000 Dollar, aber ebenso hinterlistig arbeitet heute der für elektromagnetische Umweltverschmutzung zuständige Lobbyist der Industrie bei der WHO, Dr. M. Repacholi. Die Konkurrenz unter den Elektrosmogleugnern ist halt enorm gross geworden. Verdienen tun sie allemal noch recht anständig. Siehe http://www.gigaherz.ch/973

Lesen Sie selber, wie Repacholi im Auftrag der Industrie die Eisbären in der Sahara gesucht hat, statt am Nordpol.

Alles andere ist am Leid elektrosensibler Mitmenschen schuld. Stress am Arbeitsplatz, falsche ergonomische Gestaltung des Arbeitsplatzes, psychiatrische Bedingungen, Luftverschmutzung bis hin zu flackerndem Licht, nur nicht die elektronagnetische Umweltverseuchung. Den Ärzten gibt er sogar den Rat, ja nicht die elektromagnetische Umgebung des Patienten verbessern zu wollen, sondern dessen Psyche. Elektrosensible Mitmenschen sind übrigens laut Repacholi keine Menschen sondern Individuen. Es ist halt schon so, dass man für die Eisbärensuche am besten ein Riesenkamel in die Wüste schickt. HU.J

Elektromagnetische Felder und die öffentliche Gesundheit
Elektro-Hypersensitivität WHO-Fact Sheet No. 296 Dezember 05

In einer Übersetzung von Evi Gaigg, dem Individuum, vom 14.12.05

weiter unter: http://www.gigaherz.ch/981

--------

WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/

Senator Stevens is now trying to sneak his ANWR drilling Christmas present to his oil corporation handlers into the Defense bill. He says if people want Katrina victims' aid approved they will have to roll over for this. What a sick thing to say! The response to the global warming that caused this catastrophe should be to accelerate destructive climate change even more?

Well, Maria Cantwell is not rolling over. She has sworn she will lead a FILIBUSTER to have this out of place language removed. We're not rolling over either. We will fight this last minute stunt until Santa Claus fires up his sleigh. Please call your senators at once at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641 and submit the action page at

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/anwr.htm

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

Powered by The People's Email Network Copyright 2005, Patent pending, All rights reserved

CounterPunch
by Mike Marqusee

12/19/05

Two pieces of legislation currently wending their way through Britain's Parliament illustrate how the war on terror is being used to dismantle the very freedoms it's supposed to secure. Both criminalise the expression of ideas and neither is likely to deal effectively with the problem it purports to address. They are opportunistic gambits, characteristic of a government whose moralistic bombast is in inverse proportion to the morality of its behaviour...

http://www.counterpunch.org/marqusee12192005.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Common Dreams
by Bob Burnett

12/19/05

For five years citizens have suffered 'a long train of abuses and usurpations' by George W. Bush. This week brought the announcement that he authorized domestic spying on civilians without bothering to obtain court warrants. Bush admitted this, calling the eavesdropping 'crucial to our national security.' He didn't explain why he deemed it unnecessary to first get a warrant. These revelations were the latest in a series of outrages. ... President Bush's assertion of expanded Presidential authority is wrong legally and morally. There is no justification for torture of prisoners or spying on private citizens. Two hundred thirty years ago the Founders rejected similar activity, by another George. It was despotism then, it is despotism now. The conduct of the Bush Administration cannot be tolerated...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-30.htm


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Scripps Howard News Service
by Dale McFeatters

12/19/05

The eavesdropping by the NSA, where targets are chosen by shift supervisors, is overseen by no judge, court or senior Justice Department official. It may be a valuable tool in the war on terrorism; it might also be illegal and unconstitutional. It is Congress' responsibility to say yea or nay and, if yea, to lay down the specific ground rules, oversight and checks and balances to protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties. Give the government a power, and it will use it and likely eventually misuse it...

http://tinyurl.com/bojmh


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

CounterPunch
by John Blair

12/19/05

Civil disobedience is truly the most effective means of protest but it needs to be used in creative ways following the three following rules from my perspective: 1. It must always be NONVIOLENT. No one should ever be physically harmed in any way; 2. It is best when it is ACTIVE versus passive. Stealing shovels was likely more effective in making my point than it would have been if I had simply trespassed and sat down, waiting to be carried off by some cop who is paid to uphold the laws of the corporations. Action was what captivated the TV cameras and made the act a success. 3. It must be SYMBOLIC and easily understood, both in the reasons why it is being done and what larger goal is being pursued by the action...

http://www.counterpunch.org/blair12192005.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Christian Science Monitor
by Suzanne Mettler

12/19/05

Our political leaders may aim to spread democracy abroad, but the lessening role of government in the lives of Americans -- as manifested by recent cuts to the federal budget -- does little to nurture the democratic process here at home. Although less severe than the earlier House version, the budget emerging from Congress reduces spending on social and educational programs while extending tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. These budget cuts continue a quarter century of governance guided largely by the idea that, in Ronald Reagan's words, 'Government is not the solution ... government is the problem.' But an assessment of these decades reveals that as government's role in citizens' lives diminishes, so, too, does active civic engagement. In the 1950s through the early 1970s, when government played a visible and positive role in the lives of Americans, large majorities -- according to the National Election Studies -- believed that it was something to trust, and was 'run for the good of all.' By contrast, only 30 to 40 percent of citizens today have the same trust...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1220/p09s02-coop.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

In These Times
by Mark Levine

12/19/05

In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush told the world, 'We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.' But as is always the case in politics, the devil is in the details. When will it no longer be necessary for the United States to maintain troops in Iraq? And what does 'withdrawing troops' actually mean -- all troops or just most troops? According to Bush's newly released 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,' the most important goal of our presence in Iraq is to 'help people defeat the terrorists and build a democratic inclusive state.' But if by terrorism we mean the systematic threatening, torturing and/or killing of civilians to force them to accept a political or military situation they wouldn't otherwise sanction, then the United States has committed far more acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity than the insurgents in Iraq (with perhaps more than 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians and hundreds of billions of dollars in destruction and counting)...

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2441/


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Human Events
by Bruce Bartlett

12/20/05

Last week, two new federal reports were published showing once again that the nation's fiscal position is dangerously out of whack. And by every measure, the situation has gotten substantially worse as a result of George W. Bush's policies. The first report is known as the 'Financial Report of the United States Government.' The latest is for fiscal year 2005, which ended on Sept. 30, and was published by the Treasury Department and the Government Accountability Office on Dec. 15. The summary shows a gross federal debt of $9.9 trillion, offset by assets of $1.5 trillion, for a net debt of $8.5 trillion. At the end of fiscal year 2001, the comparable numbers were $7.4 trillion for the gross debt, $926 billion for assets and a net debt of $6.5 trillion. Thus we see that the national debt has increased by $2 trillion on Bush's watch. However, because of accounting conventions, these figures greatly understate the rise of national indebtedness...

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11005


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Salon
by Bruce Schneier

12/20/05

When President Bush directed the National Security Agency to secretly eavesdrop on American citizens, he transferred an authority previously under the purview of the Justice Department to the Defense Department and bypassed the very laws put in place to protect Americans against widespread government eavesdropping. The reason may have been to tap the NSA's capability for data-mining and widespread surveillance. Illegal wiretapping of Americans is nothing new. In the 1950s and '60s, the NSA intercepted every single telegram coming in or going out of the United States. It conducted eavesdropping without a warrant on behalf of the CIA and other agencies. Much of this became public during the 1975 Church Committee hearings and resulted in the now famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978... [subscription or ad view required]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/12/20/surveillance/


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

http://www.fmnn.com/Analysis/47/3222/2005-12-19.asp?nid=3222&wid=47


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

AntiWar.Com
by US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

12/20/05

If we hope to pursue a more sensible foreign policy, it is imperative that Congress face up to its explicit constitutional responsibility to declare war. It's easy to condemn the management of a war one endorsed, while deferring the final decision about whether to deploy troops to the president. When Congress accepts and assumes its awesome responsibility to declare war, as directed by the Constitution, fewer wars will be fought. Sadly, the acrimonious blame game is motivated by the leadership of both parties for the purpose of gaining, or retaining, political power. It doesn't approach a true debate over the wisdom, or lack thereof, of foreign military interventionism and preemptive war...

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8277


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Foundation for Economic Education
by Becky Akers

12/19/05

The government suffers no shortage of gall. Barely a week after air marshals from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) gunned down passenger Rigoberto Alpizar at Miami's International Airport, the agency announced that it will expand the reach of its marshal program. That's right: slaughter a man, then, while the investigation is still going on, seek new venues. The TSA is embarking 'on a three-day pilot project to test the agency's ability to assist State and local authorities by quickly deploying federal assets in response to a specific threat,' a press release said. No word on whether those threats include Americans who distress the Pentagon with their protests against the Iraq war, or homeowners who refuse to leave their property when eminent domain evicts them...

http://tinyurl.com/8e79n


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Reuters

12/19/05

The U.S. Congress' authorization of military force after the September 11, 2001, attacks also gave President George W. Bush the right to eavesdrop on people in the United States, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Monday. 'Our position is that authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11, constitutes that other authorization ... to engage in this kind of signals intelligence,' Gonzales said. But he conceded: 'One might argue, now wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance.' He denied it was 'a backdoor approach,' saying: 'We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance'... [editor's note: The arrogance of these people is astounding - MLS] [additional editor's note: Doesn't Gonzales know that that "congressional authorization of force" is quaint and obsolete? - TLK]

http://tinyurl.com/bk6db


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Yahoo! News

12/19/05

President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat. The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war. Bush frequently talks in general terms about millions of Iraqis 'looking forward to a future with hope and optimism,' as he put it in a news conference Monday. The previous evening, he was more specific in his televised address when he declared, 'Seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well -- and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead.' He was referring to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners before the Iraqi general elections last week...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_fact_check


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Boston Globe

12/19/05

Lawmakers from both parties yesterday questioned the legality of the Bush administration's secret wiretapping -- done without court approval -- of US citizens and foreign nationals, even as the White House continued to defend the intercepts as critical to stopping potential terrorist attacks. Three prominent Republican senators -- Arlen Specter, John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- appeared on Sunday talk shows and called for investigations into the matter, intensifying public pressure on the Bush administration, which has stuck by its decision to allow domestic spying. The senators said the wiretapping might violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires special federal court approval of any surveillance of US citizens conducted for intelligence purposes on American soil...

http://tinyurl.com/bdsfq


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Las Vegas Review-Journal

12/19/05

Accused of acting above the law, President Bush forcefully defended a domestic spying program on Monday as an effective tool in disrupting terrorists and insisted it was not an abuse of Americans' civil liberties. Bush said it was 'a shameful act' for someone to have leaked details to the media. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said it was 'probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government' -- involving electronic intercepts of telephone calls and e-mails in the U.S. of people with known ties to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups...

http://tinyurl.com/2346c


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Fairbanks News-Miner

12/20/05

House of Representatives approval of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was less than five hours old Monday morning when senators took up the debate .... When the Senate opened its floor session at 9:30 a.m., Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., asked how his colleagues could even consider approving the same bill. The conference committee that merged the House and Senate versions Sunday clearly violated a Senate rule by adding the ANWR rider, he said. ... A successful point of order would block the bill's passage. To avoid that result, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and other pro-drilling senators are expected to try to reject the parliamentarian's ruling, a move that would mock the Senate's own rules, Feingold said. Stevens agreed that the Senate rule prohibits the addition of the ANWR language. However, he said, other rules also allow senators the flexibility to temporarily waive the restriction by rejecting the parliamentarian's decision...

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3173823,00.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate - he made it seem as if those who didn't agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to al Qaeda - but it will not work. We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Z.shtml

Are we so screwed up that we can't take care of the poor, sick and elderly? We all pay a huge amount of taxes, including hidden taxes and yet the states and government are always crying poor mouth and blaming the poor. Where is all that money going? ........bd


Medicaid changes could hit the poor

Mon Dec 19, 2:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The spending bill approved by the House early on Monday and awaiting a Senate vote could increase the out-of-pocket costs of many of the poor people who rely on the joint federal-state program for their health care.

The legislation also tightens eligibility rules for long-term care. Medicaid pays for roughly half of nursing home bills.

The mostly Republican backers of the bill say the changes are necessary to preserve a financially beleaguered social program that has not been updated to keep up with the changes in U.S. health care.

Mostly Democratic critics say it shreds the health safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. The AARP is among the interest groups opposed to the health care legislation.

The net savings are $4.7 billion over five years, but run to around $23 billion over 10 years. The bill:

- Gives states more flexibility in deciding what health benefits to give to those on Medicaid although basic services will be required for children, pregnant women and senior citizens.

- Allows states to require poor people to pay more out of pocket for their care by increasing co-payments or premiums. Advocacy groups say this could cost $10 billion over a decade.

- Increases from three to five years the "look-back" period to see whether middle or upper income seniors had transferred or hidden assets to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing homes. It also disqualifies anyone with more than $750,000 in home equity from Medicaid eligibility.

- Changes the way Medicaid pays for medications, particularly generic drugs. Instead of using a formula known as "average wholesale price," which critics in both parties say bears little relationship to actual prices, the payments would be based on "average manufacturer's price" which would be publicly available. Starting in 2007, the federal government will not pay more than 250 percent of the AMP of the lowest-cost version of a generic drug.

- Requires states to use basic identification documents, like drivers licenses or passports, to better enforce current law and prevent illegal aliens from getting Medicaid coverage.

- Includes $2.14 billion to help Medicaid costs in states affected by Hurricane Katrina.

- Includes the Family Opportunity Act, which makes it easier for families to get health care for disabled or special needs children without being forced to remain in poverty or institutionalize their children.

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3809/


Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news

Working through the night, the House early today voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling as part of a military measure and narrowly approved a $40 billion budget-cutting plan as bleary-eyed lawmakers concluded a marathon weekend session.

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/labor/details.cfm?id=38812


From Information Clearing House

America's business leaders supplied more than $75 million to return Mr. Bush to the White House last year - and he has paid dividends.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/NEWS09/512180341


From Information Clearing House

Today, Members of the United States Congress enjoy a vast web of perquisites that benefit them personally as well as professionally.

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=343


From Information Clearing House

U.S. officials have tried to demonize Evo Morales, a former leader of coca farmers and the country's first Indian leader, since he first came to prominence. He himself has called his Movement Toward Socialism a "nightmare" for Washington.

http://tinyurl.com/dkj54


From Information Clearing House

I wrote this post with a heavy heart, fully aware of the existence of millions of Americans who do not fit the gloomy picture the post portrays… but sometimes it may be more useful in the long run to face ugly conclusions.

http://iraquna.blogspot.com/2005/12/road-to-anti-americanism.html


From Information Clearing House

The history of guerrilla insurgencies is replete with groups that simulaneously fought on both the political and paramilitary fronts. Listen to how angry the Sunni politicians are, as they speak out in the wake of the elections, both at Bush and at the Shiites, and you get a sense of how detached the Bush administration remains from reality.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11339.htm

THE U.S. POLICY of "extraordinary rendition" has a human face, and it is mine.

By Khaled El-Masri

I am still recovering from an experience that was completely beyond the pale, outside the bounds of any legal framework and unacceptable in any civilized society. Because I believe in the American system of justice, I sued George Tenet, the former CIA director, last week. What happened to me should never be allowed to happen again.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11338.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs12192005.html


Informant: John Johnson

From: "Kathy Guthrie" Friends Committee on National Legislation

Legislative Action Message

Save ANWR Today–Tomorrow Will Be Too Late! - FCNL

The Senate will decide the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as early as tonight or tomorrow, and your senators will cast crucial votes. Please help to save ANWR today by calling them now!

Find the names and telephone numbers of your members of Congress by entering your zip code here:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/directory/congdir.tt Or call the Capitol Switchboard directly and ask to be connected to your members of Congress by name: 202-224-3121. Tell them to support the removal of ANWR from the military appropriations bill, H.R. 2863.

By contacting your senators today, you can persuade the Senate to stop its sneak attack on ANWR. After a failed attempt to pass drilling in ANWR through a filibuster-proof budget process, the Republican leadership shifted the ANWR measure into the military appropriations bill over the weekend. Your senators, regardless of their positions on the other measures contained within the military appropriations bill, now have the opportunity to require senate leadership to remove ANWR from the military appropriations bill. There is a strong chance that ANWR drilling can be blocked in the Senate if there is enough public outcry in the next 12 to 24 hours. You could make the difference.

Take Action

Your senators need to hear from you now to stop ANWR oil drilling!

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Background

Drilling in ANWR furthers the dead-end energy policy of oil dependence. Promoting domestic oil production and consumption is no way to advance future peace and prosperity for our country. It makes our country and world less secure and is threatening to transform the global climate upon which we depend. Twenty-year government projections estimate U.S. oil consumption will rise sharply to 28 million barrels per day from the current rate of 20.5 million barrels per day. Many in Congress are wrongly focusing on domestic production’s potential to quench our growing thirst for oil, but the U.S. cannot possibly drill its way out of trouble. For long-term economic stability, national security, and to avoid future conflicts over energy the U.S. must reduce its oil dependence and consumption now.

Read an interfaith sign-on letter opposing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-
http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/Faith_Communities_ANWR_Letter.pdf

The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/

Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/


Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795 fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330

We seek a world free of war and the threat of war We seek a society with equity and justice for all We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled We seek an earth restored.


Informant: Martin Greenhut

The unemployment rate among whites is holding steady at 4.3 percent, while the black unemployment rate climbed to a staggering 10.6 percent, according to the US Department of Labor. Black congressional leaders and some economists said the inability of black Hurricane Katrina evacuees to find jobs as a result of their displacement is a factor.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/121905LA.shtml

The catch-22 of the American healthcare system is that while many people work "for the insurance," when they become too sick to work and are most in need of that insurance, they are most at risk of losing it. This is particularly true of workers at small companies, which are not covered by existing laws protecting workers' rights.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/121905HA.shtml

Say Scientists

The world is now hotter than at any stage since prehistoric times, a top climatologist announced last week. His startling conclusion comes as NASA reported that 2005 has been the hottest year ever recorded. Research also shows that carbon dioxide levels in the air - the main cause of global warming - are higher now than at any time in the past hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/121905EC.shtml

The United States has not joined the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gases, but the pact nevertheless is boosting sales for American companies that market "clean" energy technologies. The spread of renewable-energy standards, along with a surge in oil and gas prices, have triggered a boom in business for solar- and wind-energy companies.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/121905EA.shtml

White flags on top of houses and cars; plenty of American and Iraqi military vehicles; too many check points and blocks on the road; many frightening walking patrols; curfew after sunset; heaps and heaps of destroyed houses, shops, offices, the only bridge, hospitals and medical care centers; walls covered with bullets shots and election posters; and empty faces with bleak looks wandering in the streets. This is the picture of al-Qa'im after the "Steel Curtain" military operation began on November 5, 2005, with 3,000 American and Iraqi troops participating.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905Q.shtml

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3810/


Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-34.htm



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo

Sozialpolitische Aktionen und Proteste

Perspektiven der Proteste 2005ff.

Vorschläge für Aktionen im Frühjahr 2006

Jetzt ist Schluss! Aufruf der Gewerkschaftslinken, erstmals vorgelegt auf der Aktions- und Strategiekonferenz in Frankfurt am 19./20. November (pdf)
http://www.die-soziale-bewegung.de/2006/fruehjahrsdemo/JetztIstSchluss.PDF


Widerstand und Solidarität. Der am 10. Dezember 05 vom Aktionsbündnis Sozialproteste intern beschlossene und der Versammlung der Sozialen Bewegungen als Vorschlag für die gemeinsame Mobilisierung vorgelegte Entwurf (pdf)

http://www.die-soziale-bewegung.de/mails/Widerstand_und_Solidaritaet.PDF